I am disgusted

Without naming any names I am disgusted by so-called experts, people with huge numbers of BBO masterpoints making disgracefully misleading bids in order to score slams that they have absolutely no right to make

It is a disgrace. I dont think they can all be put down as errors

We all make occasional errors but not bids b y highly experienced "expert" players that are deliberately designed to mislead the defence on their lead

Most of us play by the rules and the spirit of the game. We bid what is in our hand, what our partners and opps understand. We may occasionally stretch our point counts. We do not deliberately mislead. It is a disgrace and it is no surprise this person has so many BBO masterpoints. It may have been a genuine error but I do not see how it could have been in this case

This robot is being used to earn meaningful ACBL masterpoints and engage in meaningful tournaments like the NABC. If there are experience BBO people who spend all their time gaming the bot I sincerely hope they are not playing in the NABC

Law 73.E.1: A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not emphasized by unwonted haste or hesitancy, nor protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience).

Let me repeat the same thing that I told you the last time you raised this same issue: Not only does BBO and the ACBL tolerate the behaviour that you are condemning, they actively endorse it. (The ACBL publishes a guide for players that describes how to score well against the bots which discusses the psyching against the bots and describes situations in which players might consider doing so).

So, while you might find this aesthetically unpleasing, this doesn't violate the Laws of bridge, not does it violate the rules of the game.

You need to learn the difference between these two cases and you need to learn not to repeatedly make the same misguided claims.

Without naming any names I am disgusted by so-called experts, people with huge numbers of BBO masterpoints making disgracefully misleading bids in order to score slams that they have absolutely no right to make. It is a disgrace. I dont think they can all be put down as errors. We all make occasional errors but not bids b y highly experienced "expert" players that are deliberately designed to mislead the defence on their leadMost of us play by the rules and the spirit of the game. We bid what is in our hand, what our partners and opps understand. We may occasionally stretch our point counts. We do not deliberately mislead. It is a disgrace and it is no surprise this person has so many BBO masterpoints. It may have been a genuine error but I do not see how it could have been in this caseThis robot is being used to earn meaningful ACBL masterpoints and engage in meaningful tournaments like the NABC. If there are experience BBO people who spend all their time gaming the bot I sincerely hope they are not playing in the NABC

thePossum raises an interesting point; although there doesn't seem to be a problem when the other 3 players are robots.
There's a problem, however, in other contexts: for example: when you play with a human, against a pair of robots.
We, in Tunbridge Wells, feel that the game would be more interesting, more realistic, and fairer, if we could disclose our methods in a way that robot opponents/partners were able to understand and use.

thePossum raises an interesting point; although there doesn't seem to be much problem when the other 3 players are robots.

There's the problem (more in general) of whether it is assimilabile to bridge, and hence whether an RA should allow it to generate points. But that too has been thrashed to death and nobody really seems to care (or to paraphrase Woody Allen, everyone needs the eggs).

nige1, on 2019-March-09, 08:57, said:

There's a problem, however, in other contexts: for example: when you play with a human, against a pair of robots.
We, in Tunbridge Wells, feel that the game would be more interesting, more realistic, and fairer, if you could disclose your methods in a way that robot opponents/partners were able to understand and use.

I strongly second your opinion about disclosure methods and your endorsement of a BML.
Even then though, the whole question of robots and agreements remains a can of worms until the Laws take better account of the current characteristics of robots: in particular the inability to recognise patterns of behaviour by partner and to formulate modified agreements as a result, more in general the lack of consciousness and free choice, hence intentionality and awareness of duties (when was the last time a robot called the Director).

The WBF has asked Maurizio Di Sacco to adapt the Laws to electronic play. I think he will find the matter of human-robot interaction and disclosure considerably tougher than more obvious issues like freedom to revoke or tempo management. Interestingly, he is one of the few senior Directors who talks about psychic plays, which the Laws do not seem to encompass. He is also in favour of disallowing random signalling during play, so GIB would be in trouble right away

As far as I know other than changing your CC the only robot that you can input what your bid means against is QPLUS. You can if playing with a human press non normal bid or some such button and then describe in as much detail as you like what your bid means. The robot sort of uses this information. For example if you tell it 1♦= 4 + hearts and nothing about diamonds it will use heart bids as cue raises in that auction. There was a move at one point in the World Computer Bridge Championship to have alertable bids explained to other competitors and the interface they use to play the games has or had this incorporated, but I think it has never really been used. The systems allowed are very restrictive and cc's are detailed enough for the most part for them to play each other.

We, in Tunbridge Wells, feel that the game would be more interesting, more realistic, and fairer, if we could disclose our methods in a way that robot opponents/partners were able to understand and use.

There is nothing wrong with being "lucky" and winning. No matter how much we hate the idea this is a perfectly legal concept in bridge. A player pretending to have a certain ace when they hold three small (for ex) in order to dissuade such a lead from a bot (or human) opponent is taking a chance their opponent does not have a holding where leading that suit will not hurt. If I ever tried it I am certain the robot would laugh at me x and lead the AKQJ at least but others are not worried so much about how much they go down. They feel they are playing the odds and that is their right. Personally I am more disgusted we do not have a declare only challenge with both players getting the same opening lead. I then would not worry about how the bots got me into some putrid contract since my opp has to suffer the same way and the play would be the thing. We all have stuff we dislike:))))))))))))))))

Let me repeat the same thing that I told you the last time you raised this same issue:s.

While, you seem to know the type of behavior being discussed and believe you.
Poster makes no explicit mention of an example hand.
Any discussion is a waste of time as don't know behavior. I want my last 3 minutes back

While, you seem to know the type of behavior being discussed and believe you.
Poster makes no explicit mention of an example hand.
Any discussion is a waste of time as don't know behavior. I want my last 3 minutes back

The example hand doesn't matter

So long as the player is not deliberately tanking boards, the behaviour is legal and permissable regardless of what the player holds.

I am disgusted by so-called experts . . . making disgracefully misleading bids in order to score slams that they have absolutely no right to make.

It is a disgrace.

We all make occasional errors but not bids by highly experienced "expert" players that are deliberately designed to mislead the defence on their lead

Most of us play by the rules and the spirit of the game. We bid what is in our hand, what our partners and opps understand. We may occasionally stretch our point counts. We do not deliberately mislead.

Possum,

You seem to be conflating "the rules and spirit of the game" with "bidding what is in our hand, what our partners and opps understand."

Let me provide you with an example of someone doing exactly (or at the very least similar) what you describe. In last month's Bridge World Master Solvers Club, the first problem was this:

IMPs. Both sides vulnerable. You, South, hold:♠KQJT83 ♥985432 ♦- ♣7

The auction:

N ---- E ---- S
1♠ -- (P) -- ?

Any discussion of what is or is not the best response is unimportant. Of the 28 panel votes (remember these are all world class players), two chose 2♦. One of them, Zia, explained with, "To get a lead vs. 7♣." My reaction was to chuckle inwardly, then step back and admire his thinking. What Zia espouses here is certainly designed to mislead. I made a mental note to, "Expand my thinking!" This responding-with-a-suit-I-am-void-in would still not be my choice, but I can admire and applaud the tactic.

Is Zia's recommended response disgusting? Disgraceful?

Expand your thinking.

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” George Carlin

I have observed this person during NABC practice and they mislead GiB on at least 50% of the hands, most of the time intending to be in No Trumps

They are clearly also a possible contender

it is blatant cheating

Disgusting

But to be perfectly honest I find it more sad and pathetic that a seemingly good player feels the need to cheat a dumb bot in an attempt to beat all those thousands of honest players

Partnership bridge has aspects that don’t apply to robot bridge, especially with GIB, which is not one of the better bots. If you want to play with and against bots, you have to adjust your bidding and play, and yes, this will include “misleading” the bot often. Should this be a skill that is recognised by organisations that promote real bridge? Well, this is a controversial issue, but for the organisation(s) involved, it is money for old rope.

In any case, the simple solution for you is the one I have adopted: don’t play with bots.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein